D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[hawkeyefan]

Sure. He can also add Godzilla. The ability to add stuff doesn't inherently make it a good idea.

I didn't say it is a good idea. Under what circumstances would you as GM add something to the fiction? It's not in your prep or on the map... but it winds up in the game. How? What criteria do you consider?

And guess what I didn't cause? That bystander to tackle me. That was entirely his decision, not at all forced(caused) by me. Same with the arrest. Someone calling the cops isn't forced by me in any way. Only the direct black eye was caused by me.

What caused the bystander to try and tackle you? Yes, it was his decision... but why did he make it? What could have happened that would cause a bystander to tackle a person out of the blue?

"Only the black eye was caused by me" is a really, really silly claim.

Do you really think that anyone would describe all those potential outcomes as not caused by the punch to the eye?

Even less caused by me. I'm neither responsible for, nor have caused what other people decided to do. There's a distant connection, but no cause and effect with those things.

@AlViking and you have both talked about what would have happened "either way". The cook would be in the kitchen, either way, success or fail.

The stranger would not have tackled you "either way". All those consequences only come about because of what you did. That's cause and effect.

The black eye is not the only effect. It is, frankly, absurd to make that claim.

And this is a Strawman. I said they were connected distantly, there's just no cause and effect going on.

Well, @AlViking has consistently been using the word UNCONNECTED. If you don't agree with that, then perhaps speaking for "we" doesn't make a lot of sense.

Do you agree with him that they are UNCONNECTED? Or with me that they are CONNECTED?

Ooh, further Strawman. We're saying the failed attempt doesn't cause it, and we are correct.

You ought to respond to what we are saying

Funny you say that. Here's what I asked you.

What if they're literally on the other side of the door, unable to open it?

Here's how you responded.

I didn't. The example I saw had them upstairs, which is why using the upstairs window as a backup came into the picture(not by me).

To answer your question, though, if they are literally on the other side of the door, they just reach out and unlock it, then walk outside.

Way to try and dodge the question.

They're just beyond the door. It cannot be opened. You are on the outside, and maybe have a chance to open it. You fail to do so. They don't make it.

Would you truly describe your failure to open the door as UNCONNECTED to their fate? Yes or no?

No idea.

The DM would have determined that before an attempt ever happened. Maybe the 5% chance was successful, so he rolled to see which person was awake. The cook came up, so he decided that the cook woke up to go to the bathroom. Then he rolled to see if she went back to bed or did something else and that was successful, so she ended up hungry and down in the kitchen at 2am and will spend half an hour making and eating a snack.

Later when the PC comes to pick the lock, if he arrives at 1:20am, she isn't there regardless of the roll. If it's 2am to 2:30am she is there regardless of the roll. If he comes after, she's not there.

That's just one possible scenario. I have no idea what the specific DM would have used to determine why she would be there at the time the PCs are.

What would you do, Max? That's what I'm asking.

Do you track time so closely that you're aware of every NPC's status and location at every minute? And that of the PCs, too? Do you assign percentages to all NPCs to sleep through the night? How do you handle this at the table?

Think of a time in your game where you added an NPC. Why did you do it? What criteria did you consider?

What won't decide it, though, will be the roll. She isn't going to be there on a failed check and gone on a successful one.

Again... take your own advice and respond to what was said. I didn't ask you how it wouldn't be decided.

 

[AlViking]

Wait! You used Godzilla, too!?

Of course. Because GODZILLA!

 

[AlViking]

This isn't a gotcha. It's a question. One you repeatedly don't answer to instead answer something else I didn't ask.

Under what circumstances would you add something like a guard to the fiction?

Please note, I am very aware that you would NOT do so on a failed roll. You have answered that unasked question several times now. I'm hoping you'll answer the question that I asked.

So, when would you add a guard? Or a cook? Or whatever new element you thought might be needed?

I did answer. I would not.

 

[Neonchameleon]

And all of this makes sense. However.....

....when I made this exact point (in different terms) in a long-ago thread I got shot down for it.

Well, I have to then succeed on my roll. Failure, or even success-with-complication, means I haven't fiat-declared anything. But if memory serves, success is supposed to be sacrosanct and the GM can't deny or subvert it, correct? If yes, then in effect I can fiat-declare it to be there by stating my intent is to steal the ruby and my action to do so is to pick the safe, and then full-succeeding on the roll.

As I said to you quite a few pages ago when you were talking about exactly this example you can be a deliberate jerk. You can also bring loaded dice to the table; there's nothing in any rulebook I've ever read saying you can't.

I'm not saying this is a good thing. I'm just saying it's a likely effect of the rules as designed.

What - that jerks will expose themselves?

Which is fine in map-and-key play because at least then the GM knows where it is, and finding it becomes, in effect, a puzzle for the players to solve. But when the GM doesn't know where it is either, then there's no fixed solution to the puzzle which makes it...well, no longer a puzzle, in any case; the players keep searching in different reasonable spots and the dice eventually tell both the GM and the players where it is.

What you're missing is that puzzle based play is a niche. If I wanted puzzles I'd open a book of puzzles or play a puzzle based computer game. They'd offer me more and better puzzles than any DM ever could. Puzzles slow the game down as half the players sit on their thumbs waiting for the puzzle fiends to solve it for them. If I wanted communal puzzle solving (and I sometimes do) I'd go along to my local Puzzled Pint where I'd get puzzles and socialising without the D&D rules getting in the way. You could eliminate all puzzles from a game and for many players the game would only be improved.

Puzzles are neither a core activity nor something that tabletop roleplaying games are inherently good at. Nor a good reason to play RPGs rather than puzzle games. So even if your arguments didn't appear to rely on the assumption that some players would be jerks then for many and in my experience most people it would not be worth sacrificing the immediacy, immersion, and emotional engagement that not having to play "mother may I" through the world gives all just to give a few puzzles.

 

[Faolyn]

Ok?

This is a fairly common "next hit wins" situation that I've seen loads of times. It comes down to a pure gamble: you hit, and win, or you miss, and die; unless your luck runs high and the foe also misses, meaning the gamble is repeated next round.

I don't see how this relates to the discussion about a door and a burning house. What am I missing?

You accept that there are consequences for failing to attack, but you don't accept that there are consequences for failing a skill check.

The only difference between "because I didn't kill the guy first, he killed me" and "because I didn't get through the door, I didn't rescue the people on the other side, so they died" is that you're used to the first one, and the second one is a new idea.

 

[Faolyn]

If the only info we-as-players have to go on* is that the ruby is in the house somewhere, and the GM hasn't determined its location ahead of time because the system says she's not supposed to do that,

Untrue. The GM in these games isn't supposed to prep plots, but they are supposed to prep situations. The GM can very easily decide that the ruby is in a safe in a hidden compartment of the desk in the homeowner's study, because that's the situation that the PCs will be up against.

 

[pemerton]

So the game is supposed to give descriptions of everything that happens?

No. I didn't say that. I said that it could.

Here's an actual example: D&D does not care about the nature of injury suffered when a person gets hurt, and has no rules for representing this. Other RPGs do: for instance, Rolemaster, RuneQuest, Burning Wheel.

AD&D does not care about the degree of attention a character is paying while walking along. 5e D&D does, with its "other activities" rules: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/basic-rules-2014/adventuring#OtherActivities

I am not posting about what is good or bad. I am trying to analyse the way game rules work, by paying careful attention to how they work, and how they relate actual events at the table to imagined events in the fiction.

You may not care for the approach D&D chose

You have no basis for inferring that, given that I posted this:

I am not criticising these features of D&D. They're pretty unremarkable RPG mechanics. I'm simply pointing out that they don't conform to a dogmatic insistence that resolution rules must model ingame processes.

Since you referenced it, here's what Sorensen says

All rules are abstractions of a larger, more complex fictional reality. They exist to ease complicated processes into something that can be more easily played with—and nothing more.​

​

Rules are not directions for play. They are not orders. They are not codifications of some external system, such as a narrative arc or erstwhile genre trope. All story is post-hoc.​

<snip>

The surprise roll is a representation of the fact that we, as fallible creatures, can be surprised.

As I posted, if the D&D surprise rules satisfy the standard set out in the manifesto, then so do all RPG rules. But I don't think that is what the author of the manifesto intended.

Well, this is more of an ideal preference. Obviously there will always be situations where the rules don't directly model in-game processes, because it's a game and that's not always practical. The preference is to minimize those situations.

I note, as did the authors of RQ and RM 40+ years ago, that D&D comes nowhere near meeting the "minimisation" requirement.

I also note that the manifesto does not agree with what you say here. It says that the only function of rules is to model in that fashion.

 

[AlViking]

I didn't say it is a good idea. Under what circumstances would you as GM add something to the fiction? It's not in your prep or on the map... but it winds up in the game. How? What criteria do you consider?



What caused the bystander to try and tackle you? Yes, it was his decision... but why did he make it? What could have happened that would cause a bystander to tackle a person out of the blue?

"Only the black eye was caused by me" is a really, really silly claim.

Do you really think that anyone would describe all those potential outcomes as not caused by the punch to the eye?



@AlViking and you have both talked about what would have happened "either way". The cook would be in the kitchen, either way, success or fail.

The stranger would not have tackled you "either way". All those consequences only come about because of what you did. That's cause and effect.

The black eye is not the only effect. It is, frankly, absurd to make that claim.



Well, @AlViking has consistently been using the word UNCONNECTED. If you don't agree with that, then perhaps speaking for "we" doesn't make a lot of sense.

Do you agree with him that they are UNCONNECTED? Or with me that they are CONNECTED?



Funny you say that. Here's what I asked you.



Here's how you responded.


Way to try and dodge the question.

They're just beyond the door. It cannot be opened. You are on the outside, and maybe have a chance to open it. You fail to do so. They don't make it.

Would you truly describe your failure to open the door as UNCONNECTED to their fate? Yes or no?



What would you do, Max? That's what I'm asking.

Do you track time so closely that you're aware of every NPC's status and location at every minute? And that of the PCs, too? Do you assign percentages to all NPCs to sleep through the night? How do you handle this at the table?

Think of a time in your game where you added an NPC. Why did you do it? What criteria did you consider?




Again... take your own advice and respond to what was said. I didn't ask you how it wouldn't be decided.

If I had not gotten out of bed this morning I would not be reading this thread. Did my getting out of bed cause me to read this?

 

[Faolyn]

If I had not gotten out of bed this morning I would not be reading this thread. Did my getting out of bed cause me to read this?

It is the first part of a chain of events that led to you reading this thread.

 

[Maxperson]

I didn't say it is a good idea. Under what circumstances would you as GM add something to the fiction? It's not in your prep or on the map... but it winds up in the game. How? What criteria do you consider?

Lots. The criteria are too varied to list. I'd have to be in a game when a specific set of circumstances came up before I could figure that out.

What caused the bystander to try and tackle you? Yes, it was his decision... but why did he make it? What could have happened that would cause a bystander to tackle a person out of the blue?

What happened that would cause it? His decision. That I punched you is very probably connected to the decision, but no part of it forced(caused) him to tackle me.

"Only the black eye was caused by me" is a really, really silly claim.

No. The silly claim is that I could force someone to tackle me by punching you. I can't cause anyone to do anything without some sort of direct threat of force against that person or a loved one.

Do you really think that anyone would describe all those potential outcomes as not caused by the punch to the eye?

Sure. Those that understand that I can't force(cause) someone to act in a certain way simply by punching you. You are arguing that they have no free will.

Well, @AlViking has consistently been using the word UNCONNECTED. If you don't agree with that, then perhaps speaking for "we" doesn't make a lot of sense.

Do you agree with him that they are UNCONNECTED? Or with me that they are CONNECTED?

I think @AlViking was using unconnected to mean not the cause. They are distantly connected as @Lanefan and myself have said repeatedly at this point.

Funny you say that. Here's what I asked you.

Here's how you responded.

Way to try and dodge the question.

They're just beyond the door. It cannot be opened. You are on the outside, and maybe have a chance to open it. You fail to do so. They don't make it.

Why can't it be opened? They are on the inside. For that matter, why haven't they jumped through a ground floor window? This example isn't very good.

Would you truly describe your failure to open the door as UNCONNECTED to their fate? Yes or no?

Asked and answered already.

Do you track time so closely that you're aware of every NPC's status and location at every minute? And that of the PCs, too? Do you assign percentages to all NPCs to sleep through the night? How do you handle this at the table?

I mean, my example doesn't involve tracking time closely at all. But yes, if you decide to rob a house in the middle of the night there will be a small chance that someone is awake. At that point I need to determine 1) when, 2) where, and 3) why.

Think of a time in your game where you added an NPC. Why did you do it? What criteria did you consider?

The party entered a town and one of the PCs wanted to go to a farrier. I hadn't considered a farrier when I designed the town, so I thought about how likely it was that the town would have one. It was large enough that someone would have to fill that role because there would be a good amount of horses in and coming through the town, so I added in a farrier without a roll.